This particular way of gaming the system never came up before IIRC. I don't see how you can really blame Obama for seeing if the courts would admit it's a stupid way of gaming the system. That court wouldn't, we'll see if the Supremes are interested in taking the case. Either way not really something to get mad at Obama about.

We shouldn't get upset with Presidents who abuse their power and violate the constitution? mmmkay.

Click to expand...

Nobody knew it was an abuse until the court decision came out. If anything the more obvious view is that what the Republicans were doing - keeping congress "in session" even though it actually wasn't - is the abuse of the constitution.

Pretending it was obviously unconstitutional to do what Obama did is something only an uninformed moran would do.

We shouldn't get upset with Presidents who abuse their power and violate the constitution? mmmkay.

Click to expand...

Nobody knew it was an abuse until the court decision came out. If anything the more obvious view is that what the Republicans were doing - keeping congress "in session" even though it actually wasn't - is the abuse of the constitution.

Pretending it was obviously unconstitutional to do what Obama did is something only an uninformed moran would do.

Click to expand...

Now that we know it was an illegal move and an abuse of presidential power, I think it's ok to be upset now.

Why? Obama had no way of knowing the Court would decide to pick the letter over the spirit.

This is a classic constitutional quandry. What the Republicans are doing clearly violates the spirit of the Constitution. The senate is not really in session in reality and no one thinks it actually is.

What Obama did appears to violate the letter of the Constitution if you conclude that it all rests on a legal fiction not the reality of the situation.

There is no clear, accepted choice of what to do when the letter conflicts with the spirit. In fact, not a single one of the 9 justices on the supreme court seem to think that going with the letter of the law is the better option. They have different ways to get to what the spirit of the constitution is but every one of them thinks the spirit is more important than the letter.

Because the Republicans have zero interest in confirming anyone to be on the NLRB. They like there not being enough members to do anything.

I have said before that any president should be able to nominate someone mainstream enough to get 60 votes in the senate. I still believe that. But the reality of the situation is that the Republicans don't care who Obama nominates. They are perfectly happy to have no one in those positions. There is no incentive on their part to compromise because they're perfectly happy if no one gets confirmed. And on top of that they're pretending to keep the senate in session when everyone knows it really isn't. I can see why Obama got fed up with the situation and decided to try to call their BS for the BS it is.

Because the Republicans have zero interest in confirming anyone to be on the NLRB. They like there not being enough members to do anything.

I have said before that any president should be able to nominate someone mainstream enough to get 60 votes in the senate. I still believe that. But the reality of the situation is that the Republicans don't care who Obama nominates. They are perfectly happy to have no one in those positions. There is no incentive on their part to compromise because they're perfectly happy if no one gets confirmed. And on top of that they're pretending to keep the senate in session when everyone knows it really isn't. I can see why Obama got fed up with the situation and decided to try to call their BS for the BS it is.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Republicans will then bitch and complain and point to XYZ organization as a failure for not being able to do it's job... Example ATF

There have been several examples in the past four years of Obama appointments being held up for months or years, and then, as a bargaining chip for something else, the Republicans will allow a vote and the person will get approved by 90% of the Senate. In other words, Republicans had no problem with the nominee; they just want to screw Obama as much as they can; damn the effect on the country.

Because the Republicans have zero interest in confirming anyone to be on the NLRB. They like there not being enough members to do anything.

I have said before that any president should be able to nominate someone mainstream enough to get 60 votes in the senate. I still believe that. But the reality of the situation is that the Republicans don't care who Obama nominates. They are perfectly happy to have no one in those positions. There is no incentive on their part to compromise because they're perfectly happy if no one gets confirmed. And on top of that they're pretending to keep the senate in session when everyone knows it really isn't. I can see why Obama got fed up with the situation and decided to try to call their BS for the BS it is.

Click to expand...

I think you meant to say he got fed up and decided to violate the constitution to get his way.

This is the way things have been done in Congress for decades. The fact that the Republicans do it more than the Dems means very little.

Click to expand...

This sentiment makes no sense to me. Politics has always been politics, but that doesn't mean any level of politicking in the same. The dems would bitch and whine but in the end they'd let the votes happen.

Right now IMO how the system works is backward. I would be ok with having a 60 vote to approve requirement, but the vote to have the vote should only take a majority. If the republicans want to vote down Obama's nominees that's fine with me but they should have to vote on them.

I think you meant to say he got fed up and decided to violate the constitution to get his way.

Click to expand...

No. He decided to make the courts figure out whether it's the letter or the spirit of the constitution that matters in this case. The DC circuit says it's the letter that matters, not the spirit. 9/9 justices on the Supreme Court disagree with that reading of the constitution when there's no politics involved. I think Obama has every chance of winning there.

He didn't break the law. Now that the Courts have ruled, if he does it, THEN, he will be breaking the law. Funny how folks who are so concerned about the Constitution don't have a clue as to how things work.

He didn't break the law. Now that the Courts have ruled, if he does it, THEN, he will be breaking the law. Funny how folks who are so concerned about the Constitution don't have a clue as to how things work.

Click to expand...

They said his actions violated the constitution. I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split. Violating the constitution = breaking the law.

He didn't break the law. Now that the Courts have ruled, if he does it, THEN, he will be breaking the law. Funny how folks who are so concerned about the Constitution don't have a clue as to how things work.

Click to expand...

They said his actions violated the constitution. I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split. Violating the constitution = breaking the law.

He didn't break the law. Now that the Courts have ruled, if he does it, THEN, he will be breaking the law. Funny how folks who are so concerned about the Constitution don't have a clue as to how things work.

Click to expand...

They said his actions violated the constitution. I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split. Violating the constitution = breaking the law.

Click to expand...

The only way he had under our system to find out whether he can do it or not is to try and see what the Courts say. He did exactly what he should. And the Supreme Court may well reverse the Court of Appeals, so its not even a done deal yet. Your grasp of civics is embarassing.

Obummer knew the people he wanted in those positions would never make it thru the normal procedure, so he deliberately tried to game the system.
he got caught and got his peepee slapped for it by the courts.

Obummer knew the people he wanted in those positions would never make it thru the normal procedure, so he deliberately tried to game the system.
he got caught and got his peepee slapped for it by the courts.

Click to expand...

He knew Republicans would never give his nominees a vote, no matter who they were - because they haven't. If Republicans had to actually vote them down that would be fine - that would be the political process at work. There would be accountabiliy. Obama could keep nominating people and sending them and the Republicans would have to justify their no votes to the people. That is how the process is intended to work.

But when you don't even give nominees a vote the political calculus becomes totally skewed. That is the senate refusing to do its job. When the senate refuses to do its job our constitution includes an "out" - you put someone in temporarily using a recess appointment. But the Republicans won't even let Obama do that. They call someone in every 2-3 days to bang a gavel for 5 minutes and claim the Senate is still in session - even though everyone knows it isn't.

It takes a weird kind of myopic worldview to say Obama is the bad actor here if he tries to test the Republicans' reliance on a technicality everyone knows is a farce. The D.C. Circuit sided with the Republicans and said technicality trumps reality but Obama has nothing to be ashamed of for trying to get an answer from them.

I just read the NY times piece on this.. It's pretty astonishing really.

“An interpretation of ‘the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction,” wrote Judge David B. Sentelle. “This cannot be the law.”The panel went on to significantly narrow the definition of “recess,” for purposes of the president’s appointment power. The judges held that presidents may invoke their recess appointment power only between formal sessions of Congress – a brief period that usually arises only once a year – rather than during breaks that arise during a session, like lawmakers’ annual August vacations. Two of the three judges also ruled that the president may also only use that power to fill a vacancy that opens during the same recess.The ruling also called into question nearly 200 years of previous such appointments by administrations across the political spectrum. The executive branch has been making intrasession appointments since 1867 and has been using recess appointments to fill vacancies that opened before a recess since 1823. Among other things, Mr. Elwood noted, it called into question every ruling made by several federal appeals court judges who were installed by recess power.

I just read the NY times piece on this.. It's pretty astonishing really.

“An interpretation of ‘the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction,” wrote Judge David B. Sentelle. “This cannot be the law.”The panel went on to significantly narrow the definition of “recess,” for purposes of the president’s appointment power. The judges held that presidents may invoke their recess appointment power only between formal sessions of Congress – a brief period that usually arises only once a year – rather than during breaks that arise during a session, like lawmakers’ annual August vacations. Two of the three judges also ruled that the president may also only use that power to fill a vacancy that opens during the same recess.The ruling also called into question nearly 200 years of previous such appointments by administrations across the political spectrum. The executive branch has been making intrasession appointments since 1867 and has been using recess appointments to fill vacancies that opened before a recess since 1823. Among other things, Mr. Elwood noted, it called into question every ruling made by several federal appeals court judges who were installed by recess power.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It is pretty astonishing. The ruling, that is. It overturns 150 years of precedent based solely on a "slippery slope" argument. There is a midground between "president can say congress is in session or not as he pleases even if it isn't true" and "congress can say whether it's in session or not as it pleases even if it isn't true."

Until the Court ruled, it wasn't illegal. You don't seem to realize that. In fact, if Obama appeals, it still won't be illegal until the Supreme Court decides. The Executive Branch had one interpretation of the law, the Congress had another. Neither was legal or illegal until the Court made a decision. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Obama, then, it is fine and dandy and Obama can continue to do it and the Congress will try to figure out some other way to stymie the Administration.

I'm guessing the Supreme Court would find in favor of Congress, but, it isn't clear cut. Presidents have been making recess appointments for decades. The Court might decide that Congress isn't in session if it isn't conducting any business and most of Congress is out of town.

Obummer knew the people he wanted in those positions would never make it thru the normal procedure, so he deliberately tried to game the system.
he got caught and got his peepee slapped for it by the courts.

Click to expand...

All the Senate needed to do was bring it up for a vote but the Republicans kept blocking it with secret holds... and not only these nominations. During his first two years there were over 100 nominations still pending and held up in the Senate by the Republicans.